sided in the Court of Admiralty had | ships they would drink the wine and the held such search to be illegal in time of water and be poisoned. This was pointed peace, he thought their Lordships ought out as the only way to deal with the Engto be most cautious on this subject-a sub-lish crews. As he was upon his legs, he ject which he earnestly recommended might be permitted to say one word, in noble Lords opposite well to consider be-order to remove any anxiety that the fore they proceeded to carry this into execution. He would not make any professions of an anxiety to put down the slave-trade. He had passed a long life in the service of her Majesty's predecessors. He had served them in diplomatic situations, in their councils and in arms, and he believed people could not accuse him of saying one thing and meaning another; but thus much he would say, that on this subject of the slave-trade there was no person, excepting one illustrious individual under whose directions he had acted, and whose loss, whose melancholy loss, he had never ceased to deplore-with the exception of that one individual, there was no person now living, or who was lost to the public service, who had written more or negotiated one-tenth as much as himself, on this very subject, with which he was now told he was not conversant. He should certainly say "not content" to the passing of this bill. Bill passed. The Earl of Minto said, he had been most auxious that the bill should become the law of the land, and as it had now passed, and in the hope of giving greater publicity through the public press to the horrible devices contrived by the parties engaged in the slave-trade, he would take this opportunity of mentioning a circumstance which by being made known might save the lives of some of those individuals against whom the diabolical contrivances were directed. He had received since this subject had been last mentioned, a despatch from the officer commanding on the coast of the Brazils, in which he stated, on the authority of Sir George Hamilton, her Majesty's Minister at the Brazils, that on the examination of the papers of the Portuguese slaver Maria, which had been captured by her Majesty's sloop Grecian, there had been found a diabolical correspondence between the slave merchants there and their agents on the coast of Africa, from which it appeared that directions had been sent to the latter to poison a cask of wine and the water to be left on the decks of the slavers, liable to be taken by the crews of her Majesty's cruisers. Then when the seamen boarded the slave VOL. L. {Third } noble Duke opposite, or any other noble Lord, might have on the subject of the right of search. That right would notbe otherwise exercised than at present. Even now it was necessary, in order to ascertain whether a vessel carrying the flag of France or Spain was a Portuguese slaver, that the British officer should go on board and deal with her as might be required. This was all that would be done under this bill. With regard to the objection that no message or communication had been made from the Throne as to the orders issued by her Majesty, he (the Earl of Minto) begged to remind their Lordships that a communication had been made in answer to the address of this House, stating that it was her Majesty's intention to issue such orders as had been thought proper by the House; and after that, it had not been thought requisite to communicate by another message that the orders which it had been stated should be issued had actually been issued. 0 Adjourned. The following protest was entered against the Third Reading of the Bill. "DISSENTIENT "1. Because no communication has been made to this House by message from the Queen which can render necessary, or which can alone justify, this House in agreeing to the proposed enactments of this bill. "2. Because those enactments authorize measures and operations of war against the subject of a foreign power, Portugal, and their property, for breaches of treaty concluded between and for offences committed against the laws of her Majesty's royal predecessors and Portugal; Portugal on the high seas and on the coast of Africa; and provides that subjects of Portugal and their property are to be brought to England or elsewhere in her Majesty's dominions, to be adjudicated by her Majesty's High Court of Admiralty, or a Court of ViceAdmiralty. "3. Because the enactments proposed in this bill deprive those foreigners thus to be adjudicated of all national protection. "4. Because they authorize the detention at sea, the boarding, the demand, search for, and examination of, the papers of all vessels met at sea by her Majesty's cruisers, or any person in her Majesty's service, in direct violation of all the treaties made with each of nearly all the Powers of Europe, for regulating a mutual right of search by ships-of-war of merchant vessels, for the suppression of the traffic called ( acquiescence of the House, had for many the slave-trade. "5. Because the amendments in the first clause of the bill leave the objection to the exercise of the right of search, exactly where it stood in the bill before it was discussed and altered in committee. "6. Because vessels sailing under the flag of any nation may be detained, boarded, searched, the demand for papers made (which must be inspected), before the illegal or predatory character of the vessel detained can be established, each of which acts of detention, boarding, demand, search for and examination of papers, is a violation of treaty as between her Majesty and each of nearly all the Powers of Europe, as applied to vessels sailing under their flags respectively. "7. Because the exercise of such right of detention, boarding, search for and examination of papers of vessels on the high seas, in time of peace, has been declared illegal by the highest judicial authority that ever presided over the English Court of Admiralty. "8. Because the exercise of such right is liable to be resented and retaliated by all the Powers of the world including those with which her Majesty is bound by treaties; each authorizing restricted and regulated mutual search of merchant-vessels in certain localities, in order to suppress the traffic called the slave trade. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Monday, August 19, 1839. MINUTES.] Bills. Read a third time:-Administration of Justice (Parts of Counties); Courts in Counties. Petitions presented. By Sir W. Somerville, from Drog heda, and Dundalk, against the Bank of Ireland Bill.By Mr. M. Philips, from Liverpool, for Inquiry into Mr. Owen's system. COUNTING OUT THE HOUSE. Mr. O'Connell wished to call the attention of the House to a practice recently adopted, and which he thought ought to be forth with discontinued. For some days past, whenever any Member took notice that 40 Members were not present, a bell was rung, in order to apprise all who were within the building, that the Speaker was about to count the House. Anciently the practice was, that the Speaker should not permit business to proceed unless he saw that thirty-nine Members besides himself were actually within the walls of the House. He (Mr. O'Connell) did not mean to impose a duty on the present Speaker, which his predecessors, with the years omitted to perform, but that which he meant to move was, that the modern practice of ringing a bell should be discontinued. It was absurd to say that forty Members were requisite to make a House, if they were to be called in, like domestic servants, at the ringing of a bell, then counted, and allowed to go away again. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving, that when notice was taken of less than forty Members being present, no bell should in consequence thereof be rung. Mr. R. Steuart believed, that the observations and motion which the House had just heard, arose out of a misapprehension. The practice to which the hon. and learned Member for Dublin alluded, was one which had not arisen within the last three or four days; on the contrary, two months ago a general wish was expressed on both sides, that some such mode of giving notice that the House was about to be counted, should be afforded to Members who at the time might happen to be in other parts of the building. He could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the practice had not been resorted to for the first time in reference to the bill then under their consideration. The bell, as the House knew, was rung by direction of the Speaker. Mr. O'Connell observed, that the hon. Member who spoke last confessed thus much-namely, that the practice was one of modern origin. He was as constant in his attendance as any Member, and he must say, that he had never heard of the practice till within the last four or five days. The Speaker said, there could be no doubt that the practice was modern. Complaint had been made by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, that the business of the country was often delayed for want of forty Members being present, when, if the division bell were rung, a sufficient number to make a House would immediately attend. Upon which the noble Lord, the Member for Stroud, suggested that it would be a convenience if on those occasions, the bell referred to were rung. The House appeared fully to concur with the noble Lord, and he gave directions accordingly. In doing this he conceived that he had been acting in obedience to the wishes of the House, and he was of course perfectly ready to obey any other Mr. Wakley thought that his hon. and learned Friend ought to carry his motion one step further. He ought to prohibit the ringing of the bell upon divisions. It appeared to him most mischievous, that hon. Members should come down there to vote upon a question without having heard one word of the discussion. He hoped that the House would agree to extending the rule to divisions. On several divisions zespecting the Poor-law Amendment Act, which recently took place, a large proportion of the Members who voted, came down from Mr. Bellamy's for that purpose, and had not heard a syllable of the debate. The House divided :- Ayes 13; Noes 34: Majority 24. tention with which the regulation respecting forty Members had been adopted, was that no business should be transacted, unless that number were actually within the House. If the principle were adopted that they might debate with a few Members, and summon to the division those who were scattered about in different parts of the building, he saw no reason why a division bell ought not to ring in Downing-street-why not at the Reform Clubwhy not at the Carlton-why should not a crier go up and down the streets. He was glad a discussion and division had taken place upon the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin; it would open the eyes of the public to the way in which the business of the country was transacted in that House. The Speaker said, the motion could not be entertained unless it properly came within the description of an amendment to the order of the day. Now, the only amendments which could regularly be moved to that was, that the House proceed to the other orders, or to some other order. Mr. Duncombe's motion fell to the ground. BANK OF IRELAND.] Mr. O'Connell would move the next Order of the Day. The number of hon. Members forming her Majesty's Opposition was now nearly as great as the regular supporters of the Administration. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had assembled on purpose to support the Government on this bill, a very decided symptom of the character of the course which the Go vernment were pursuing, a course highly favourable to the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and most offensive to the people of Ireland. He was most averse to adopt anything like what might be considered an unfair and factious line of opposition, but knowing well the insuperable objections to this bill, he repeated, that if he should die on the floor of the House, this bill should not pass if they sat there till Christmas. He had pledged himself to his constituents-he had pledged himself to the country not to allow any motion to be made without a discussion and a division. No man would be warranted in taking this course, if he was not right in the judgment of every rational person. If the bill had been brought in at the beginning of the Session, and he had adopted such a course, the good sense of the House would have borne down all opposition. But he had the good sense of the House with him on this occasion. There was not a Gentleman present who would get up, and declare solemnly his deliberate opinion that this bill had not been brought in at too late a period of the Session. Was there a man who would say the Irish people should not have had time to deliberate on all parts of the bill, and see how their interests were affected-that the great commercial towns should not be heard, if necessary, at the bar, against the provisions of the bill? The Irish Members had been here from February to July, and when many of them were obliged to leave for the purpose of attending the assizes, and could not come back again, this measure was brought they received from the Irish representatives.. It was not treating the Irish Members as they deserved to endeavour to smuggle the bill through the House in this manner. How could Gentlemen who had resisted a civil coercion bill for Ireland, support a mercantile coercion bill? How could they conceal from themselves that in supporting this Bill, they were favouring monopoly? It could not be denied, that the Bank of Ireland was one of the very worst monopolies that ever existedthat it presented the most exclusive features of monopolies. Out of 300 servants of the Bank, only three were Roman Catholics. It was unintelligible, how Gentlemen, who had supported Catholic Emancipation, and who advocated Reform principles should favour so corrupt and exclusive a monopoly. In the persever forward. The hon. Baronet, the Membering with this measure, the Irish people for Wicklow, had talked of the "withering" effect of this monopoly on his constituents. Would the House continue to enforce that "withering" process? Ought not the House to give time to that hon. Member to have a county meeting of his constituents, and obtain the opinions of the thousands who were "withering" under the baneful influence of this monopoly. He should not have taken the present course, if any reason had been given for not bringing the measure forward earlier, or in support of the merits of it. This was a subject which ought to have been discussed before-a subject which his constituents were in a ferment upon, because they were afraid of the Bank of Ireland, | would have one of the strongest arguments for a Repeal of the Union. They were refused railroads because, forsooth, they were poor; curious argument that for refusing people money. And now they were refused a free and unembarrassed system of banking, by which the people of Scotland had been enabled to achieve such enterprises as railroads. Irish Members would neglect their duty most grossly were they not to give every opposition in their power to this bill. In consequence of bad Government the means of communication had long been so bad in Ireland, that, in parts, the news had not reached them that there was such a bill before Parliament. Was it fair and and they knew well what would be the re- | honest that a bill like this should be car sult on their commercial dealings if they took part against the Bank of Ireland. If the Government would grant a call of the House, he would then agree to discuss the measure, and submit to be beaten as he did on every other occasion. The hon. and learned Member, in conclusion moved as an amendment, the Order of the Day for the second reading of the "Poddle River Bill." ried on, not by open and unprejudiced support, but by the aid of the officialists? The business of the House had for some time been carried on by Members, three fourths composed of Government dependents. It was surprising that the Government, instead of propitiating the independent Members, were anxious to gain the support of Gentlemen opposite. This appeared to indicate that the Ministry were only Whigs in profession, and Tories in reality. Mr. Gisborne said, there was a clause in the bill, if ever they should arrive at it, which proposed to continue the monopoly Mr. Dillon Browne seconded the amendment. This measure had been resisted by every independent Irish representative, by men of the highest condition in the country, and there had not been a single independent vote from Ireland in of exclusive issue to the Bank of Ireland, support of the monopoly. The Govern- for a circle of sixty-five miles round Dubment were now hurrying this measure lin. When that clause came to be disthrough the House, although they knew cussed, it might appear that a majority of they owed their existence to the support Members were opposed to that clause, and, if so, it was likely that the great ground of difference might be adjusted. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make a fair proposal on the subject, he thought the question might be brought to a satisfactory compromise. If something of that kind were not done, he could see no plan of coming to a settlement. A call of the House would not be attended with a satisfactory result, for the Members were now scattered over the world, and many of them would never hear of it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would not have taken any part in this preliminary discussion if it had not been for the direct question which had been put to him by the hon. Member for Carlow. That question was, whether he should feel disposed to enter upon a fair discussion of the circle of sixty-five miles. For answer, he needed only to remind the House of what he had said to a deputation of Irish Members, that he was perfectly ready to consider the question of boundary; but that he wished to know first of all whether it was intended to involve the question of issue. The answer he received was, that no alteration of the circle would be satisfactory, unless it was accompanied by a concession on the question of issue. He did not think, under all the circumstances, be given for examining the subject in all even if he were to accede to the suggestion of the hon. Member, that it would lead to a settlement, if he were to agree, for instance, to compromise, which would apply to Newry and other large towns, and still exclude Drogheda. If he thought otherwise, and could see that an arrangement could be effected by the suggestion of the hon. Member for Carlow, it would be far more agreeable for the Government to adopt it. He would now say a few words in answer to charges that had been made against the Government on this question. First of all, they had been accused of attempting to force this bill by means of an official majority. He had, in consequence, analysed the divisions, and found that, after abstracting the official Members, the sense of the House was in favour of the bill. The tone was now altered, and they were taunted with having the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He knew of no reason why hon. Gentlemen opposite should not support this measure, if they believed, as he did, that it was founded on correct principles. He did not think that a call of the House would now lead to a full attendance, and even if 300 Mem |